web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "George Stephanopoulos"

Video: Pelosi Just Outright Lies About Schiff’s Parody Stunt, Gets Called Out by Fellow Democrat

Westlake Legal Group NancyPelosiAPimage-620x317 Video: Pelosi Just Outright Lies About Schiff’s Parody Stunt, Gets Called Out by Fellow Democrat washington D.C. Ukraine Call Ukraine Social Media republicans Politics North Carolina Media journalism Impeachment of President Trump impeachment George Stephanopoulos Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture Congress California Allow Media Exception adam schiff

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., reads a statement announcing a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

House Intel Committee Chair Adam Schiff’s despicable parody reading of the Trump/Zelensky call last week is a matter of public record, and anyone can read the transcript of his account or watch the video.

So it was more than a bit perplexing to hear about how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi described Schiff’s stunt in an interview she did with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos Wednesday.

Stephanopoulos was a senior adviser for President Bill Clinton from 1992 to 1996, so perhaps Pelosi had that in mind when she responded to his question about whether or not it was right for Schiff to do a “dramatic interpretation” of the call.

Here’s how she answered him:

“I want the American people to know what that phone call was about. I want them to hear it. So, yeah, it’s fair. It’s sad. But it’s using the President’s own words.”

Here’s the part where I thought, well, Stephanopoulos is going to do Stephanopoulos things and let her get away with the lie (because Schiff most definitely did not use “the President’s own words” from the actual transcript). Pelosi probably thought he’d let her skate, too.

But he didn’t.

Before Pelosi could continue on with the rest of her explanation, Stephanopoulos interjected to correct her. “But those weren’t the President’s words. It was an interpretation of the President’s words. [Republicans] are saying they made this up.”

Pelosi responded by continuing to lie, telling Stephanopoulos that Schiff “did not make it up.” She then went off on a rant about how she understood her Constitutional oath of office better than her Republican colleagues did, or whatever.

Watch the exchange below:

She also told a blatant whopper at around the 1:50 mark of the interview when she more or less said the alleged quid pro quo was implied as the president was “asking for a favor to create dirt on your political opponent.”

This is just not true. Again, reading the actual transcript, at no point during the call did Trump ask Zelensky to “create dirt” on Joe Biden. It just did not happen. This is something a number of Democrats including Schiff and Ted Lieu have said about the call, and the media have let them roll with it because narratives and Orange Man Bad.

The fact that Pelosi, Schiff, Lieu, and others are just outright making up stuff that was never said during the Trump/Zelensky call says that the supposed “firm ground” they say they’re on regarding impeachment is in reality about as “firm” as quicksand.

——
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Video: Pelosi Just Outright Lies About Schiff’s Parody Stunt, Gets Called Out by Fellow Democrat appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group NancyPelosiAPimage-300x153 Video: Pelosi Just Outright Lies About Schiff’s Parody Stunt, Gets Called Out by Fellow Democrat washington D.C. Ukraine Call Ukraine Social Media republicans Politics North Carolina Media journalism Impeachment of President Trump impeachment George Stephanopoulos Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture Congress California Allow Media Exception adam schiff  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Stephanopoulos to Schiff: If what Trump said was so bad, why make up dialogue?

Westlake Legal Group schiff-abc2 Stephanopoulos to Schiff: If what Trump said was so bad, why make up dialogue? volodymyr zelensky Ukraine-Gate The Blog Parody impeachment House Intelligence Committee George Stephanopoulos donald trump adam schiff

Kudos to George Stephanopoulos for asking the obvious question after last week’s stunt at the House Intelligence Committee — although Adam Schiff seemed surprised by it. “If the facts are as damning as you say,” ABC’s This Week host asked, “why make up dialog for dramatic effect, even if it’s a parody, as you say?”

Schiff never gets around to actually answering that question, nor does he have one for another of Stephanopoulos’ questions (via Twitchy):

STEPHANOPOULOS: You have been criticized by the president and others for comments you made in your opening statement at the hearing on Thursday. I want to show a bit of it right here.

SCHIFF: I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it. This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That was you making up dialogue, putting it in the president’s mouth. If the facts are as damning as you say, why make up dialog for dramatic effect, even if it’s a parody, as you say?

SCHIFF: Well, George, you’re right the call speaks for itself. And it is plenty damning, but let’s not pretend that this is really what the president is upset with me about. I can tell you exactly why the president is furious with me, and that is because when I learned that a whistle-blower had filed a complaint and urgent complaint that was being withheld from congress, and no one knew about this yet, I went public to demand that we get that complaint. I scheduled a hearing with the acting director to force the director to come in as I said at the time to explain to the American people why he was the first director to withhold a complaint from congress. That had the effect of forcing the White House to produce that complaint, which I then made public. That also had the effect of forcing them to release that call record. That’s what the president is furious with me about. The president believes that it is his god-given right to shake down foreign leaders for help in his re-election, and he should not be encumbered by the public finding out about it. That’s what has incensed the president. And I am willing to take the brunt of that. And I have to say once again how grateful I am to the courage of the whistle-blower. All I did was expose that complaint. The whistle-blower — had the whistle-blower not come forward, none of us would have known of the corrupt conduct the president of the United States was engaged in.

None of this answers Stephanopoulos’ question. If the transcript really showed all of what Schiff claims, why not just quote from it? Schiff could even have done a dramatic reading of it to highlight all of the examples of “shaking down” Volodymyr Zelensky for help in his re-election. Schiff could have just offered a couple of quid pro quo quotes.

Instead, we got parody … the precise thing into which is what Schiff has transformed himself over the past two years. It would be a lot easier to take anything Schiff says seriously if he hadn’t destroyed his credibility by claiming for two years that he’d seen objective evidence of Trump colluding with Russian intelligence, only to have Robert Mueller confirm that no such evidence exists. This is a case of derangement, and Schiff just made it even more public in his opening statement — so much so that Stephanopoulos had no choice but to point out the obvious.

It’s not as if the Zelensky call isn’t troublesome and doesn’t raise questions about Rudy Giuliani’s activities in Ukraine. It does, however, make it clear that Schiff can’t conduct a credible investigation into it. It’s certainly not evidence for impeachment, except perhaps as parody.

Speaking of which, here’s the other question from Stephanopoulos that Schiff couldn’t quite answer:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why has there not been a full House vote authorizing these impeachment proceedings? That happened in the case of Richard Nixon, it happened in the case of Bill Clinton and it happened with Andrew Johnson.

SCHIFF: Well, look, I tried an impeachment case some years ago in the Senate involving a corrupt judge. As far as I recall, we didn’t have a vote in the — in the full House to formally —

STEPHANOPOULOS: For the presidential impeachments you have.

SCHIFF: Well, it’s certainly not necessary as a matter of constitutional law that we have a vote. All that’s necessary is that we conduct the impeachment inquiry in the manner that we’re doing, that we, through the Judiciary Committee, and Chairman Nadler has already done this, declared themselves to be pursuing an impeachment inquiry, and now this is the formal position of the entire caucus and our leadership. So, a vote isn’t required.

Stephanopoulos wasn’t asking about black-letter law; he was reminding Schiff of the seriousness of impeachment. The precedent for taking it seriously is to have the full House vote first on whether it is serious, not have two committee chairs go on a flier for their own purposes. Maybe at some point, Schiff and Nadler will just tell us this was all parody.

The post Stephanopoulos to Schiff: If what Trump said was so bad, why make up dialogue? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group schiff-abc2-300x162 Stephanopoulos to Schiff: If what Trump said was so bad, why make up dialogue? volodymyr zelensky Ukraine-Gate The Blog Parody impeachment House Intelligence Committee George Stephanopoulos donald trump adam schiff  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Stephanopoulos to Schiff: If what Trump said was so bad, why make up dialogue?

Westlake Legal Group schiff-abc2 Stephanopoulos to Schiff: If what Trump said was so bad, why make up dialogue? volodymyr zelensky Ukraine-Gate The Blog Parody impeachment House Intelligence Committee George Stephanopoulos donald trump adam schiff

Kudos to George Stephanopoulos for asking the obvious question after last week’s stunt at the House Intelligence Committee — although Adam Schiff seemed surprised by it. “If the facts are as damning as you say,” ABC’s This Week host asked, “why make up dialog for dramatic effect, even if it’s a parody, as you say?”

Schiff never gets around to actually answering that question, nor does he have one for another of Stephanopoulos’ questions (via Twitchy):

STEPHANOPOULOS: You have been criticized by the president and others for comments you made in your opening statement at the hearing on Thursday. I want to show a bit of it right here.

SCHIFF: I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it. This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That was you making up dialogue, putting it in the president’s mouth. If the facts are as damning as you say, why make up dialog for dramatic effect, even if it’s a parody, as you say?

SCHIFF: Well, George, you’re right the call speaks for itself. And it is plenty damning, but let’s not pretend that this is really what the president is upset with me about. I can tell you exactly why the president is furious with me, and that is because when I learned that a whistle-blower had filed a complaint and urgent complaint that was being withheld from congress, and no one knew about this yet, I went public to demand that we get that complaint. I scheduled a hearing with the acting director to force the director to come in as I said at the time to explain to the American people why he was the first director to withhold a complaint from congress. That had the effect of forcing the White House to produce that complaint, which I then made public. That also had the effect of forcing them to release that call record. That’s what the president is furious with me about. The president believes that it is his god-given right to shake down foreign leaders for help in his re-election, and he should not be encumbered by the public finding out about it. That’s what has incensed the president. And I am willing to take the brunt of that. And I have to say once again how grateful I am to the courage of the whistle-blower. All I did was expose that complaint. The whistle-blower — had the whistle-blower not come forward, none of us would have known of the corrupt conduct the president of the United States was engaged in.

None of this answers Stephanopoulos’ question. If the transcript really showed all of what Schiff claims, why not just quote from it? Schiff could even have done a dramatic reading of it to highlight all of the examples of “shaking down” Volodymyr Zelensky for help in his re-election. Schiff could have just offered a couple of quid pro quo quotes.

Instead, we got parody … the precise thing into which is what Schiff has transformed himself over the past two years. It would be a lot easier to take anything Schiff says seriously if he hadn’t destroyed his credibility by claiming for two years that he’d seen objective evidence of Trump colluding with Russian intelligence, only to have Robert Mueller confirm that no such evidence exists. This is a case of derangement, and Schiff just made it even more public in his opening statement — so much so that Stephanopoulos had no choice but to point out the obvious.

It’s not as if the Zelensky call isn’t troublesome and doesn’t raise questions about Rudy Giuliani’s activities in Ukraine. It does, however, make it clear that Schiff can’t conduct a credible investigation into it. It’s certainly not evidence for impeachment, except perhaps as parody.

Speaking of which, here’s the other question from Stephanopoulos that Schiff couldn’t quite answer:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why has there not been a full House vote authorizing these impeachment proceedings? That happened in the case of Richard Nixon, it happened in the case of Bill Clinton and it happened with Andrew Johnson.

SCHIFF: Well, look, I tried an impeachment case some years ago in the Senate involving a corrupt judge. As far as I recall, we didn’t have a vote in the — in the full House to formally —

STEPHANOPOULOS: For the presidential impeachments you have.

SCHIFF: Well, it’s certainly not necessary as a matter of constitutional law that we have a vote. All that’s necessary is that we conduct the impeachment inquiry in the manner that we’re doing, that we, through the Judiciary Committee, and Chairman Nadler has already done this, declared themselves to be pursuing an impeachment inquiry, and now this is the formal position of the entire caucus and our leadership. So, a vote isn’t required.

Stephanopoulos wasn’t asking about black-letter law; he was reminding Schiff of the seriousness of impeachment. The precedent for taking it seriously is to have the full House vote first on whether it is serious, not have two committee chairs go on a flier for their own purposes. Maybe at some point, Schiff and Nadler will just tell us this was all parody.

The post Stephanopoulos to Schiff: If what Trump said was so bad, why make up dialogue? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group schiff-abc2-300x162 Stephanopoulos to Schiff: If what Trump said was so bad, why make up dialogue? volodymyr zelensky Ukraine-Gate The Blog Parody impeachment House Intelligence Committee George Stephanopoulos donald trump adam schiff  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Democratic fundraisers on Sen. Harris’ debate performance: ‘too much odd laughter and canned lines’

Westlake Legal Group Kamala-Harris-debate Democratic fundraisers on Sen. Harris’ debate performance: ‘too much odd laughter and canned lines’ The Blog Pete Buttigieg kamala harris George Stephanopoulos Fundraising Andrew Yang 2020 Democrat debates

Kamala Harris was on the bubble with some California Democratic donors before last night’s debate. Those donors were hoping to see her come out swinging last night and present herself as a serious alternative to Joe Biden. But according to CNBC, last night’s performance failed to impress:

Many of them were hoping for a repeat of the aggressive tactics she used in the first debate, when she took on former Vice President Joe Biden for his willingness to work with segregationists as a senator in the 1970s.

Now these sources say that these uncommitted contributors are still not convinced they can dedicate their expansive networks to her cause alone…

One source close to a political fundraising powerhouse in California, Harris’ home state and a region where she’s dominated in the fundraising game, said Friday that they had been having trouble convincing their donors to back her candidacy before the debate. The negative opinion didn’t change after the debate.

“I don’t think anything has changed and it’s been grim,” this person said. On the debate stage, this person noted that donors believe Harris is still “unclear about her message and strategy.” They liked the “Trump focus,” this person said, “but there was too much odd laughter and canned lines.”

Ouch! And there’s more including a New York donor who said of Harris’ performance, “She didn’t score any points.”

But she definitely seems to be having a good time. Earlier today Ed wrote about one of those awkward moments from the debate in which Harris seemed to be laughing too hard at her own joke. But it wasn’t the only time last night when her laughter seemed to disrupt things, including her own message. At the of a long, serious answer about foreign policy she made a reference to the Wizard of Oz that turned into another laugh-fest between her and 5’5″ George Stephanopoulos:

And after Andrew Yang proposed giving $1,000 a month to ten supporters, Harris could be heard laughing as Pete Buttigieg prepared to speak:

Kamala Harris is definitely having a good time. What she’s not doing is impressing the donors she needs to keep her struggling campaign going.

The post Democratic fundraisers on Sen. Harris’ debate performance: ‘too much odd laughter and canned lines’ appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Kamala-Harris-debate-300x153 Democratic fundraisers on Sen. Harris’ debate performance: ‘too much odd laughter and canned lines’ The Blog Pete Buttigieg kamala harris George Stephanopoulos Fundraising Andrew Yang 2020 Democrat debates  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Top Congressional Democrat: Donald Trump is a 1960’s-Style Racist, ‘No Doubt’

Westlake Legal Group elijah-cummings-abc-this-week-SCREENSHOT-620x331 Top Congressional Democrat: Donald Trump is a 1960’s-Style Racist, ‘No Doubt’ Uncategorized This Week rashida tlaib New York Ilhan Omar house oversight committee chairman George Stephanopoulos Front Page Stories elijah cummings Congress Ayanna Pressley AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ABC

[Screenshot from ABC News, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBkTnt2XbIE]

 

In life, how many things are you completely sure of?

What are they? Your preference between crunchy and smooth peanut butter? Whether Nickelback rocks? Your favorite Batman?

For House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, one of the things about which he has “no doubt” is that President Donald Trump is a racist.

That’s right — somehow, New York’s most eccentric billionaire built a business empire, made public appearances and major deals, gave countless interviews and hobknobbed with Hollywood, popped up in major motion pictures, thrived among Democrats as an esteemed member, and even mentored black cultural leader Russell Simmons…and all along, he had this defining secret which somehow remained hidden from all.

Until…

An “R” was placed beside his name and BLAMMO — Hitler rises to the surface like so much cream.



On ABC’s This Week Sunday, Elijah told George Stephanopoulos all about it:

“The race card has long been part of the Trump playbook. How much farther will he go, at what cost to the country? … [Trump has] unleashed, raw, racist politics. It’s a tactic Trump has deployed so many times before, the reaction predictable too.”

Just kidding. That wasn’t Elijah. That was the ABC host. That’s how George began the segment (as per The Daily Wire).

Here’s Elijah, partly responding to the interviewer’s question of him being reminded of a 1962 atrocity:

“That’s right, George. We were trying to integrate a Olympic-size pool near my house and we had been constrained to a wading pool in the black community and we tried to integrate it and as we did march towards that pool over a course of six days, I was beaten and all kinds of rocks and bottles thrown at me.

“And the interesting thing is that I heard the same kind of chant, go home, you don’t belong here. And they called us the N word over and over and over again. And George, I got to tell you that I’m not the only person of color who have – who has had those kind of experiences.

“And what it does when Trump does these things, when the President does these things, it brings up the same feelings that I had over 50 some years ago and it’s very, very painful. It’s extremely divisive and I just don’t think that this is becoming of the President of the United States of America, the leader of the entire world.”

Elijah was, of course, referring to The Donald’s recent tweet aimed at the left-wing Freshman Fab Four (here) — Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, and fartfighter Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (here).

The congressman went on to defend the Quad Squad:

“These are folks and women who love their country … I’m going to tell you, these are some of the most brilliant young people that I have met and I am honored to — to — to serve with them.”

Oh, and people are frightened of the President:

“George, no matter where I go, what I’m hearing over and over again is — from my constituents is please save our democracy, please save our country. And you know something else they say, George? They say I’m scared. And I have not — I’ve never in my total of 37 years in public service ever heard a constituent say that they were scared of their leader.”

Then Stephanopoulos asked the biggie — “Do you believe President Trump is racist?”

Elijah:

“I believe he is — yes, no doubt about it. And — and I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I got to tell you, George — let me tell you, I get — when I think about what he said to these young ladies who are merely trying to bring excellence to government and trying to make sure that generations yet unborn have an opportunity to experience a true democracy, when I hear those things it takes me back, like I said. And — and — and I can still remember bleeding from my forehead when people were throwing bottles — and these were adults, throwing bottles and saying go home [racial slur].”

So there ya are. BLAMMO.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Women In Vancouver Lose Their Businesses As A Man Tries To Legally Force Them Into Waxing His LadyScrotum

Shocker: Democratic Pennsylvania Mayor Refuses To Fly The Gay Pride Flag, & He Has His Reasons

Al Franken Says He Should’ve Never Resigned, And The #MeToo Whirlwind Gets A Bit Of Honest Reflection

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post Top Congressional Democrat: Donald Trump is a 1960’s-Style Racist, ‘No Doubt’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group elijah-cummings-abc-this-week-SCREENSHOT-300x160 Top Congressional Democrat: Donald Trump is a 1960’s-Style Racist, ‘No Doubt’ Uncategorized This Week rashida tlaib New York Ilhan Omar house oversight committee chairman George Stephanopoulos Front Page Stories elijah cummings Congress Ayanna Pressley AOC Allow Media Exception Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ABC  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump: I never ordered McGahn to fire Mueller

Westlake Legal Group trump-abc Trump: I never ordered McGahn to fire Mueller The Blog obstruction of justice Mueller report George Stephanopoulos executive privilege donald trump Don McGahn

Did Don McGahn lie to Robert Mueller — or did he just assume Donald Trump wanted Robert Mueller fired? Trump floated both of those possibilities to George Stephanopoulos in the latest clip featured by Good Morning America from their one-on-one interview. “I was never going to fire Mueller,” Trump declared, “I never suggested firing Mueller,” and his former White House counsel’s testimony “doesn’t matter”:

“Why would [McGahn] lie under oath?” Stephanopoulos later asked.

“Because he wanted to make himself look like a good lawyer,” Trump said. “Or he believed it because I would constantly tell anybody that would listen — including you, including the media — that Robert Mueller was conflicted. Robert Mueller had a total conflict of interest.”

“And has to go?” Stephanopoulos followed up.

“I didn’t say that,” Trump insisted.

This exchange will get plenty of buzz today, but it’s actually not all that significant. Democrats have made a lot out of this part of the Mueller report, but even if Trump told McGahn that Mueller “had to go,” it’s not obstruction. For one thing, Mueller didn’t go — no one fired him, and he completed his work. For another, Trump had the legal authority to fire him, although that might have been obstruction — if a corrupt intent could be proven. All that actually happened, even if one believes the version in the Mueller report (and it’s fairly believable, given Trump’s mercurial nature), is that Trump had discussions with advisers that ended up going nowhere.

This doesn’t amount to obstruction. It does demonstrate why executive privilege exists, however. Presidents need to have the room for wide-ranging discussions in the White House in order to develop good policy and, well, to keep from violating the law. To use a historical analogy: It’s not a crime for a president to cry out Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? — at least not until four aides show up and bash in the head of the Archbishop of CanterburyThen, you have a problem.

Returning to the interview, Stephanopoulos tries to get Trump to answer why he refused to answer any questions on obstruction. Trump said he answered questions about what was supposed to be the issue in the special-counsel probe, and calls Stephanopoulos a “little wise guy” for pressing the matter:

“George, you’re being a little wise guy, OK — which is, you know, typical for you,” Trump shot back. “Just so you understand. Very simple. It’s very simple. There was no crime. There was no collusion. The big thing’s collusion. Now, there’s no collusion. That means they set — it was a setup, in my opinion, and I think it’s going to come out.”

Trump doesn’t mention it, but he was under no legal obligation to answer any questions. Politically, of course, it would have looked bad, but legally a president has the same rights to remain silent as any other American. His answer makes it clear that he saw the expansion into obstruction by Mueller as illegitimate, but even apart from that, as a kind of perjury trap … which it almost certainly was.

The post Trump: I never ordered McGahn to fire Mueller appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group trump-abc-300x164 Trump: I never ordered McGahn to fire Mueller The Blog obstruction of justice Mueller report George Stephanopoulos executive privilege donald trump Don McGahn  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump: “I think I’d take” oppo info from foreign sources

Westlake Legal Group trump-foreign-info Trump: “I think I’d take” oppo info from foreign sources Ukraine The Blog Steele dossier Russia Norway George Stephanopoulos foreign interference donald trump 2020 presidential campaign

Welcome to today’s political Rorschach test, in which your political leanings can be determined by whether you answer Russia or Norway. Both come up in this part of Donald Trump’s interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, who asked whether Trump would accept dirt on his political opponent(s) from foreign sources. “I think I’d take it,” Trump said, and offered Norway as an example of a source he wouldn’t turn down. “We’re talking about Russia,” Stephanopoulos answered:

President Donald Trump may not alert the FBI if foreign governments offered damaging information against his 2020 rivals during the upcoming presidential race, he said, despite the deluge of investigations stemming from his campaign’s interactions with Russians during the 2016 campaign.

Asked by ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in the Oval Office on Wednesday whether his campaign would accept such information from foreigners — such as China or Russia — or hand it over the FBI, Trump said, “I think maybe you do both.”

“I think you might want to listen, there isn’t anything wrong with listening,” Trump continued. “If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent’ — oh, I think I’d want to hear it.”

What about calling the FBI, Stephanopoulos asked. What about it, Trump replied:

“The FBI director said that is what should happen,” Stephanopoulos replied, referring to comments FBI Director Christopher Wray made during congressional testimony last month, when he told lawmakers “the FBI would want to know about” any foreign election meddling. …

“The FBI director is wrong, because frankly it doesn’t happen like that in life,” Trump said. “Now maybe it will start happening, maybe today you’d think differently.”

So what’s the correct answer? Ukraine, and for a couple of reasons. First, most people either never knew or have forgotten that Hillary Clinton and the DNC were reaching out to Ukraine for dirt on Trump during the 2016 campaign, only in a much more circumspect fashion, a point which Stephanopoulos fails to mention here. Let’s not forget too that the Steele dossier was also an attempt to use foreign sources for dirt on an opponent; Steele used his own Russian sources to get what now looks like a disinformation folio, manipulated to rattle the election in its own way.

Second, Trump has to consider Joe Biden his most likely opponent in next year’s election, and Biden’s connection to Ukraine politics has already come up in this cycle. Trump is likely hopeful that there’s more where that came from, even if Rudy Giuliani doesn’t collect it in person. With House Democrats trying to dig through his bank records and tax returns, he doesn’t want to take anything off the table.

Still, this is a remarkably tone-deaf argument, especially after the last two-plus years. Team Trump tried to use foreign sources for dirt on Hillary and botched it, creating a disastrous blowback from which Trump is still trying to recover. The Trump Tower debacle alone should have been enough of a learning experience to swear off of that kind of strategy ever again, especially with the same team forming for the next election. The smart answer here would have been, “I don’t need anyone’s help to beat Joe Biden except from good ol’ red-blooded American voters.” How difficult is that to say, even if you don’t necessarily mean it?

The post Trump: “I think I’d take” oppo info from foreign sources appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group trump-foreign-info-300x164 Trump: “I think I’d take” oppo info from foreign sources Ukraine The Blog Steele dossier Russia Norway George Stephanopoulos foreign interference donald trump 2020 presidential campaign  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Democrats are Apoplectic That Trump Would Listen To A Foreigner With Dirt On An Opponent

Westlake Legal Group AP_18271664262015-620x419 Democrats are Apoplectic That Trump Would Listen To A Foreigner With Dirt On An Opponent President Trump Mueller Investigation Impeachment of President Trump Hillary Clinton George Stephanopoulos Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception 2020

President Donald Trump smiles during a meeting with Chilean president Sebastian Pinera, in the Oval Office of the White House, Friday, Sept. 28, 2018, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

 

During a sweeping interview with President Trump on Wednesday, George Stephanopoulos asked, “If foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on an opponent, should they accept it or should they call the FBI.”

Trump replied, “I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen. There’s nothing wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, ‘Oh, we have information on your opponent,’ I think I’d want to hear it.” (Relevant portion starts at 1:45 on the video below.)

Trump’s response immediately became red meat for the liberal media who were consumed with self-righteous indignation. Considering that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC paid $12 million to a foreigner to not only dig up dirt on candidate Donald Trump, but to disseminate it among the Washington political community, the Intelligence agencies and then to the media, their reaction was extraordinary indeed.

One of the most amusing of all came from Obama’s DNI Director, James Clapper, who told CBS News’ Anderson Cooper that he was just “stunned.” It is believed that Clapper leaked word to the media that former-FBI Director James Comey had briefed the President-elect on the Steele dossier, which gave them the green light to break the story. (Clapper’s remarks begin at 1:40 in the video below.)

Clapper said:

I’ve run out of adjectives to describe my reaction to this. Incredible, amazing, I think stunning and disturbing, that the President would advocate the use of…accepting information provided by a foreign country, notably a foreign adversary. And in doing so, completely overlooking the fact that this could well be, probably would be disinformation. In other words, completely phony. (Anderson Cooper shudders at the thought of this.) And to endorse that, and in doing so, endorse…undercut the FBI and its Director is just incredible. I can’t get over the duplicity of it. Here, with all the criticism about the…the…infamous dossier, and you know, you can’t use it because it’s not valid, you can’t accept it, and that’s…you know…in this case, it’s okay.

Let me repeat, “I can’t get over the duplicity of it.” Tell me again where Christopher Steele got his dossier material.

MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle asked her guest panel, “Is the president going to be reported as a security threat after that interview?” The panelists responded similarly, all agreeing that Trump was “sending a message to foreign governments that it’s “open season” for them to interfere in U.S. elections.”

The 2020 Democratic candidates, of course, found Trump’s answer equally appalling. Here are some of their tweets:

Joe Biden: “President Trump is once again welcoming foreign interference in our elections. This isn’t about politics. It is a threat to our national security. An American President should not seek their aid and abet those who seek to undermine democracy.”

Corey Booker: “It’s not “oppo research” — it’s foreign interference in US elections. That you would say this is disgraceful. That you would do it from the Oval Office (yet again) proves you’re unfit for the office you hold”.

Elizabeth Warren: “The #MuellerReport made it clear: A foreign government attacked our 2016 elections to support Trump, Trump welcomed that help, and Trump obstructed the investigation. Now, he said he’d do it all over again. It’s time to impeach Donald Trump.”

Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro: “After seeking and receiving the help of our adversaries to to get elected in 2016, Donald Trump is now essentially calling for an open season on our 2020 elections. Once again, he’s putting his interests above our nation’s, and risking and the integrity of our elections.”

Sen. Kamala Harris told the Huffington Post, “I am concerned, and the American public should be concerned. It’s sending a signal to our adversaries around the world ― North Korea, Russia, fill in the blank ― saying, ‘Hey, come on in for 2020.’”

Any one of these candidates would listen to a foreigner who told them they had dirt on Trump in a New York minute.

In February 2018, Adam Schiff was pretty quick to listen to (and engage with) a prankster who called his office to say he had naked pictures of President Trump. He claimed to be Andriy Parubiy, the chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament.” (Audio can be heard here.)

Sean Hannity pointed out that “listening is much different than lying, spying and paying for Russian lies and spreading it through the media by deep state operatives and then using it as the basis of a FISA warrant.”

As Attorney General William Barr’s investigation gets into high gear, Democrats have doubled down on their accusations against the President. They talk about impeachment as if he’s actually committed a crime. Their ability to remain oblivious to reality is breathtaking.

Hopefully, in the not too distant future, they will become the accused.

How should we punish them? Should we send SWAT teams to their homes because they are such dangerous criminals? Bankrupt them with legal fees? Place them in solitary confinement? Or maybe send them to Rikers Island, just because.

The post Democrats are Apoplectic That Trump Would Listen To A Foreigner With Dirt On An Opponent appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_18271664262015-300x203 Democrats are Apoplectic That Trump Would Listen To A Foreigner With Dirt On An Opponent President Trump Mueller Investigation Impeachment of President Trump Hillary Clinton George Stephanopoulos Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception 2020  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Sekulow: “If they had an obstruction case, they would have made it”

Westlake Legal Group sekulow-if-they-had-an-obstruction-case-they-would-have-made-it Sekulow: “If they had an obstruction case, they would have made it” The Blog Mueller report Jay Sekulow impeachment George Stephanopoulos donald trump

Westlake Legal Group trump-laugh Sekulow: “If they had an obstruction case, they would have made it” The Blog Mueller report Jay Sekulow impeachment George Stephanopoulos donald trump

That’s what William Barr said, but it’s not really what Robert Mueller said. Jay Sekulow, Donald Trump’s lead personal attorney, lays out what the debate over obstruction will look like over the next few weeks, few months, few years … basically forever. If Trump didn’t act even within his own authority over an investigation that proved no core crime, how can he have obstructed?

From now on, we will all be either Team Sekulow or Team Stephanopoulos:

One way in which Trump ended up not obstructing, Mueller wrote, was in his aides’ refusal to follow through on his orders. Page 370:

The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests. Corney did not end the investigation of Flynn, which ultimately resulted in Flynn’s prosecution and conviction for lying to the FBI. McGahn did not tell the Acting Attorney General that the Special Counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign over the President’s order. Lewandowski and Dearborn did not deliver the President’s message to Sessions that he should confine the Russia investigation to future election meddling only. And McGahn refused to recede from his recollections about events surrounding the President’s direction to have the Special Counsel removed, despite the President’s multiple demands that he do so. Consistent with that pattern, the evidence we obtained would not support potential obstruction charges against the President’s aides and associates beyond those already filed.

So which is it? Do we consider the attempts at obstruction evidence of potentially criminal behavior? Or does the fact that Mueller never got impeded, except by individuals who lied to investigators and subsequently prosecuted for it, let Trump off the hook?

The response to that question depends on whether one supports Trump or opposes him. Thanks to the end result of the Mueller probe, it’s not a legal question any longer.  It is now a political question, including whether Congress decides to take up impeachment on the basis of this report. That seems highly unlikely, however, because of the implosion of the Russia-collusion myth, which likely has derailed impeachment forever. Democrats raised expectations too high on that count, especially Adam Schiff. Without any evidence that Trump corrupted the election, voters won’t want Congress to overturn it through impeachment. That almost certainly will include even less-committed voters in between the two poles.

And this from my friend John Hinderaker is a point worth considering:

One of the Democrats’ basic problems is that “attempting” to obstruct the investigation doesn’t make a lot of sense. If Trump had really wanted to obstruct the investigation, he could simply have terminated it. And Mueller acknowledges that the administration fully cooperated with the investigation in every way. So the “attempts to obstruct” come down to Trump expressing outrage at the fact that a baseless, partisan investigation was hampering his administration. Arguably Trump should have brought the Mueller farce to an end, but he didn’t.

That’s a reasonable conclusion … if one’s intending to be reasonable. Put it another way: if Trump really wanted to obstruct the investigation, he wouldn’t have tried pushing his aides into doing it for him. Especially when it became clear that even his closest aides and advisors knew better than to try it.

Anyway, all of that is moot now. Even the nitty-gritty on obstruction isn’t likely to change minds on Trump, at least not among partisans. He’s a bully? No kidding. He runs off at the mouth when angry and issues threats? Trump has poor impulse control and borderline narcissism? No kidding. Voters already know that Trump’s a crude hardball fighter. It’s why his base loves him, and these “episodes” won’t convince them to rethink that passion.

The collapse of the Russia-collusion hypothesis will exhaust voters with this whole business. Democrats will mine the report for derogatory information to prepare for the 2020 election cycle, but after a few weeks even those will get consigned to the storage attic of politics. Apart from Robert Mueller’s eventual testimony, when interest will spike again, everyone else outside of the media-Beltway bubble will want to return their focus to policy issues. Today’s big bang will be next year’s last flicker, whether it should be or not.

The post Sekulow: “If they had an obstruction case, they would have made it” appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group trump-laugh-300x173 Sekulow: “If they had an obstruction case, they would have made it” The Blog Mueller report Jay Sekulow impeachment George Stephanopoulos donald trump  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com